The Vespro della Beata Vergine by Claudio Monteverdi is one of
the greatest masterpieces in music history. It shares the fate of some other
great works, such as Mozart's Requiem and Bach's
Mass in B minor in that it raises many questions which have not
been definitively answered as yet. In regard to the present recording two
issues are of particular relevance. Was this collection conceived as a
liturgical unity? If so, for which feast could it have been intended?

In his liner-notes Denis Morrier argues that it is almost certain that the
Vespers were not intended as a liturgical unity. It is then quite surprising
that Leonardo García Alarcón decided to perform it as such anyway. This
resulted in the need to answer the next question. Morrier states that the
five concerti could not find a place in any of the seven Marian
feasts of the liturgical calender. The notes on the interpretation add that
"since Monteverdi built his polyphony sopra canti fermi, it is
a straightforward matter to discern the plan of the tones used for each of
the five psalms and the Magnificat. Until now, it has proved
impossible to identify any office among all the feasts of the Virgin or of
other female saints proper to particular places (...) that employs the same
tones for the antiphons as those in which Monteverdi wrote his psalms".
Several solutions which have been chosen by other conductors are called not
"wholly satisfactory". The option chosen here is admitted to be
"anachronistic". It consists in composing an office in which the
tones of the antiphons correspond to the tones of the psalms and the
Magnificat. The interpreters chose the antiphons for the Feast of
the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (8 September), "the most
important of the official feasts of the Virgin in the early seventeenth
century, celebrated with particular fervour in Venice". The melodies
were composed in the correct tones on the basis of then existing
formulas.

The performers have paid special attention to one aspect of performance
practice: how to perform the plainchant? In all the recordings which I have
heard there is quite a difference between the plainchant and
Monteverdi's compositions. This is partly due to the difference in
style, but also to the way plainchant is usually performed. According to
Lionel Desmeules this style is based on performances of the monks of
Solesmes and reflects the aesthetics of the 19th century "steeped in
piety, mingled with sentimentalism, which considered reference to a past in
ruins to be the only hope for church music". This seems a general
statement which fails to do real justice to all previous performances and
recordings. Over the years I have heard many recordings in which the
plainchant was performed without a hint of sentimentality. That said, most
conductors seem to pay little attention to the issue of the performance
practice of plainchant in a work like this. Any attempt to find a more
historically aware approach deserves a welcome. Here the performances are
inspired by the views of Marcel Pérès which he practises with his Ensemble
Organum. Among the most obvious features are larger dynamic contrasts and a
more declamatory way of singing. I noticed also some traces of traditional
music around the Mediterranean. However, Pérès' views are not
universally accepted and whether it comes close to the way plainchant was
sung in Monteverdi's time is anybody's guess. I also often
wonder whether plainchant shouldn't rather be performed like
Monteverdi's psalms and concertos, with ornamentation and something
like messa di voce.

A declamatory manner of singing is also a feature of the way
Monteverdi's works are performed here. The choice of tempi - often on
the fast side - is based on the rhythm of the text. It also makes García
Alarcon take some liberties in the treatment of the tempi, sometimes slowing
down and then speeding up. The same amount of freedom is applied to the
concertos in which the soloists take the time to explore the emotions of the
text and the addition of ornaments. Sometimes the performances are on the
verge of overdoing the pathos, for instance in the very slow conclusion of
Pulchra es and the way the solo part in Audi coelum is
performed. In the latter piece it is notable that the solo part and the echo
are performed by basses rather than tenors. Unfortunately the booklet
doesn't reveal the names of the singers in the concertos.

The authors of the two essays in the booklet admit that this performance
is not historically plausible in some essential parts. Their honesty is
praiseworthy. Nonetheless the approach is certainly original which makes
this recording highly interesting. When performers try to find new and
unusual solutions to problems which seem impossible to solve, they deserve
applause as long as they don't violate the very foundations of
historical performance practice. The approach chosen here is defended with
great conviction. In fact, musically speaking this performance should be
rated among the very best on the market.

The number of singers which should be involved in performances of the
Vespers is another issue of controversy to which no definitive solution
seems possible. This kind of music is basically ensemble music: music for a
vocal and instrumental ensemble whose members take care of the solo parts.
The soloists here are not part of the choir and the booklet doesn't
indicate whether they participate in the tutti. However, most important is a
strong element of stylistic coherence between the participants; that is
certainly the case here. All the soloists are outstanding, and their voices
blend perfectly in the concertos. The Choeur de Chambre de Namur is one of
the best of its kind, and proves once again its mastery of the style of
Monteverdi's time. The Cappella Mediterranea gives an excellent
account of the instrumental parts. The ornamentation in the Ave maris
stella is particularly beautiful.

In short, whatever one may think of some decisions taken here, this
recording of Monteverdi's masterpiece is not to be missed.